According to the herald article he had long ago announced he would not contest the next election. This resignation makes no practical difference. He avoided this outcome long enough to get closer to an election date and avoid a byelection.

The real scandal is why the police chose not to prosecute. I would like to know more about that one.

gzt: According to the herald article he had long ago announced he would not contest the next election. This resignation makes no practical difference. He avoided this outcome long enough to get closer to an election date and avoid a byelection.

The real scandal is why the police chose not to prosecute. I would like to know more about that one.

I would prefer to know why was Kim Dotcom allowed to enter NZ and secure permanent residence.

MikeRetired IT Manager. The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

gzt: According to the herald article he had long ago announced he would not contest the next election. This resignation makes no practical difference. He avoided this outcome long enough to get closer to an election date and avoid a byelection.

The real scandal is why the police chose not to prosecute. I would like to know more about that one.

I would prefer to know why was Kim Dotcom allowed to enter NZ and secure permanent residence.

From wikipedia:

He applied for residency and received it in November 2010. The New Zealand Immigration Department made its decision on his application (despite his foreign convictions and despite his persona non grata status in Thailand) after officials used a special direction to waive "good character" requirements. Warwick Tuck, head of New Zealand Immigration, said that New Zealand granted Dotcom residency under the "investor plus" category, which allows people to gain residency if they invest $10 million in New Zealand.

It was anticipated that Dotcom would contribute to New Zealand through investment, consumption and philanthropic activities – he has given $50,000 to the mayoral fund following the Christchurch earthquake, another $50,000 to a rugby player who was left in a wheelchair after an on-field injury and funded a $600,000 fireworks display in Auckland harbour.Mr Tuck says Dotcom disclosed his previous convictions and these had been considered, they occurred more than 16 years earlier and did not involve harming anyone.

Dotcom also told Immigration NZ his convictions had been "erased" from his record under Germany's clean-slate legislation.

Two months after New Zealand granted him residency, Dotcom was convicted in Hong Kong on several counts of failing to disclose his shareholding levels and fined 8000 Hong Kong dollars. New Zealand immigration authorities judged the convictions too minor to consider deporting him.

gzt: According to the herald article he had long ago announced he would not contest the next election. This resignation makes no practical difference. He avoided this outcome long enough to get closer to an election date and avoid a byelection.

The real scandal is why the police chose not to prosecute. I would like to know more about that one.

I would prefer to know why was Kim Dotcom allowed to enter NZ and secure permanent residence.

It's not a case of 'choose one and not the other' ; ).

There was a herald investigation a while back. Conclusion was, he spent a lot of money here just on consumables prior to his application and officials decided that spending was anticipated to continue and his convictions were 16 y/o so keep the money coming. Would you have made the same decision? Why/Why not?

National/ACT voter perchance? Because I can only imagine that's the only explanation for how you can possibly conflate engaging in a criminal act (deliberately structuring a donation to avoid having to declare the source) and ...

Great argument, except that is precisely what Len Brown did. (Deliberately structured his donations (through a blind trust) to avoid having to declare the source(s).)

Banks declared his donations, and he was found guilty of what is essentially a clerical error around ONE of those many donations that he either did not notice, or if you agree with the Judge's finding, wilfully chose to ignore.

Hate the man, or hate his politics, by all means... But let's at least be honest about what happened here.

(And let's also look forward to prosecution of the other 32 cases of breaching the Electoral Act that have been referred to the Police... )

I do not think John Banks is inherently dishonest.He is polarizing, and a lot of people seriously dislike him (it was one of these people that brought this prosecution).

He was not going to stand for reelection anyway, he legally does not have to resign from parliament either (morally, yes). The fact that he is going leaves the government having to grease some palms in parliament to pass whatever remaining legislation there is before parliament rises on 31 July.

What I feel this case has highlighted (and ALL other politicians should take heed) is to stay well away from Kim Dotcom - he is poison.

I'm a former ACT member (and fairly obviously voter). Was never a fan of Banks, but ended up repudiating ACT entirely when he came out as a literal creationist and the party didn't give him the boot. Want to believe in imaginary friends, I think your daft but be my guest. Want to believe in imaginary friends creating planets in 6 days despite the huge volume of scientific evidence against it, different story. You have no place being anywhere outside a loony bin, let alone in power in parliament as the associate minister of education.

In a related note, did anyone else find John Keys "aww yeah well actually we wouldn't have accepted his votes anyway" AFTER he resigned to be.. self serving snake oil salesman BS?

Information wants to be free. The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

Having never met John Banks I cannot say if I like or dislike him, I don't like his political ideals but that's a different kettle of fish. It's the same with Kim Dotcom never met so again I cannot say if I like or dislike him, but I don't like what he is doing to NZ reputation and he is taking the p***.

MikeRetired IT Manager. The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

6FIEND: ....Banks declared his donations, and he was found guilty of what is essentially a clerical error around ONE of those many donations that he either did not notice, or if you agree with the Judge's finding, wilfully chose to ignore. ....

6FIEND: ....Banks declared his donations, and he was found guilty of what is essentially a clerical error around ONE of those many donations that he either did not notice, or if you agree with the Judge's finding, wilfully chose to ignore. ....

Really? A clerical error that can put you in jail for up to 2 years?

Clerical error my bollocks. Dotcom of course knew about this and kept it quiet until it suited him, which is dodgy (not illegal), but I think the court has found correctly here. This was more than an oversight.

Whether this happens "all the time" is not relevant. Theft happens all the time, and that does not make it OK.

6FIEND: ....Banks declared his donations, and he was found guilty of what is essentially a clerical error around ONE of those many donations that he either did not notice, or if you agree with the Judge's finding, wilfully chose to ignore. ....

Really? A clerical error that can put you in jail for up to 2 years?

Clerical error my bollocks. Dotcom of course knew about this and kept it quiet until it suited him, which is dodgy (not illegal), but I think the court has found correctly here. This was more than an oversight.

Whether this happens "all the time" is not relevant. Theft happens all the time, and that does not make it OK.